​Last night on The Curse of Oak Island, the program name-checked “forensic geologist Scott Wolter” as one of “a growing number” of “scholars” who allege that the “so-called ‘hooked X’” is a Templar symbol. The team examined a piece of sandstone with an X with a “hook” intentionally scratched into it. Anyone, of course, could have created it at any time. Naturally, this excited the show about Templars again because the producers decided that Templars are the main through-line of the season. It’s still a show about digging holes, and I still find it painfully boring. I will be interested, though, to see whether Wolter’s outrage from last week about having his pet fantasy coopted continues now that the producers have paid him obeisance. In a tweet this morning, Wolter claimed that an X had been scratched atop a natural formation, with the “hook” being natural. “NOT Templar IMHO,” Wolter tweeted.

Look carefully, the shorter line of the "X" looks natural. Up-right arm is actually two lines with hook that's too short. NOT Templar IMHO. pic.twitter.com/FJImrbk80w

​As most of you know, I am particularly interested in archival research because finding the origin of weird claims is often quite illuminating. On social media this week, I’ve encountered more than a few people talking about how the Egyptian pyramids were actually built by a cult of primitive Freemasons, possessed of secret Enochian knowledge or some such hooey. At a gross level, the claim is a derivative of nineteenth century arguments by Freemasons, as quoted by Piazzi Smyth, that the pyramids were “simply places for initiating neophytes.” Such accounts can be found in the Masonic literature of the latter nineteenth century, with varying degrees of logic undergirding them. This was close kin to John Taylor’s erroneous claim that the Egyptians, being heathen, were too damned by God to be worthy of the perfection of the pyramids, which therefore must have been built by the Jews of the immediate post-Noachian epoch, perhaps, as many Masons later held in publications like the Universal Masonic Library, in imitation of the Tower of Babel. It’s hardly a stone’s throw from the Jews building the pyramids to having them built by Enoch and the early Jewish Freemasons who would later construct Solomon’s Temple atop the ruins of Enoch’s buried chamber.

But in my research this week, I came across a singularly strange passage about what Freemasons were alleging about the Great Pyramid in the middle nineteenth century. The testimony comes to us from Bourchier Wrey Savile, an Anglican clergyman who was formerly a British Israelist and a believer in the so-called Messianic Prophecy of the Great Pyramid—the odd claim that the Great Pyramid was divinely inspired to encode in its measurements a timeline of God’s creation and Christ’s return. In disparaging Anglo-Israelism and also the Masons’ presumption of claiming the pyramid for themselves in 1880, he reports the following:

​Professor Piazzi Smyth, in his work on the Great Pyramid (ii. 367), mentions the case of an Oxford Freemason, A.D. 1866, who contends the Pyramids are “simply places for initiating the neophytes in, and as the mysteries in every country were funereal, the use of the sarcophagus is easily explained” on the principles of Freemasonry. Professor Greaves had previously said that “the Pyramids, like the Caves of Elephanta, and the Round Towers of Ireland, built by the pupils of Zoroaster, were all places of initiation;” or, perhaps, we might say with as much truth, what Curran wittily said of the last, that they were “built for the purpose of puzzling posterity.” The connexion between the Great Pyramid and Freemasonry has greatly commended itself to our brethren in the far West, whom the Anglo-Israelites usually designate “Manasseh,” while claiming descent for themselves from the tribe of “Ephraim.” A member of the Masonic craft has been lecturing in the cities of the United States, under the auspices of the Grand Masonic Lodge of Iowa, asserting that the Grand Lodge of Alexandria, in Egypt, has recently discovered a new chamber in the interior of the Great Pyramid, containing a great number of slates, covered with hieroglyphic inscriptions, which confirm the truth of the chief doctrines of Scripture, and serve as an admirable reply to the sceptical tendencies of the present age. I believe the Anglo-Israelites of England do not acknowledge the authority of this American associate in their Great Pyramid labours, notwithstanding that an enterprising Yankee publisher has sent forth a work of several hundred pages, with a full account of these most wonderful discoveries. Professor Piazzi Smyth, however, treats the whole tale as a myth of the dark ages, reserving his belief in the Great Pyramid for matters certainly as speculative, and possibly still more unlikely, than the theory which seeks to make Freemasonry an argument against the various hypotheses of Bishop Colenso, and his companion Agnostics of the Rationalistic School.

​I wish I knew what the mysterious book sent by a “Yankee publisher” was. I have been unable to locate references to this book or to the mysterious chamber filled with slates outside of this account.

This, in turn, led me to a spectacular bit of pseudo-history perpetrated by C. E. Getsinger, who might well be the quack patent medicine man who in the early 1900s marketed a fake tuberculosis cure called Oxidaze that was a glorified sugar pill. Now remade as a member of the fictitious “Royal Egyptologists’ Society,” he fooled William Randolph Hearst’s newspaper syndicate, the International Feature Syndicate, in 1922 into reporting that Noah’s Ark was really the Great Pyramid. The syndicate spread the story to a bunch of papers on July 30, 1922, all of which published the same preformatted page. I have always been a firm believer that low culture reveals much of what high culture hides, and seeing how the public experienced fringe history is quite valuable.

It’s such a spectacular example of fringe history fantasy masquerading as fact that I can’t help but reprint it in full in my Library. Technically speaking, it’s not really a hoax because the source of the claim was merely making a ridiculous analysis of historical material. But take a look at what he said: Getsinger identifies Noah’s flood as having occurred between 30,000 BCE and 20,000 BCE, and he argues that the pyramids were built by a lost civilization resident on Atlantis, which was destroyed by the flood. He adds:

​Investigations prove that the pyramids (the ‘Noah’s ark’ pyramid and others) were under the sea for years. Near the top of each of the pyramids, at the same level, is a high water line, where a deep niche has been cut into the rock by the lashing of the surf. […] The entrance to Cheops is 52 feet above the ground, so placed that the Polar or North Star could shine directly into the interior, which it did according to astronomy, about 30,000 years ago and so, after its complete cycle, does again to-day.

I do not conceive that actual animals entered the pyramid or ‘ark.’ I assume that the so-called animals referred to the animal signs of the Zodiac--Aries, the ram; Taurus, the bull; Cancer, the crab; Leo, the lion; Scorpio, the insects; Capricornus, the goat; Pisces, the fish.

​Do you recognize it? The author wears his influences on his sleeve. You have a bit of Ignatius Donnelly’s Atlantis: The Antediluvian World, astronomical claims taken over from Piazzi Smyth, and a good chunk of reworked material stolen from the medieval Arab pyramid myth and the Arabic historians. Al-Biruni, writing around 1030 CE, said, “People are of opinion that the traces of the water of the Deluge, and the efforts of the waves, are still visible on these two pyramids half-way up, above which the water did not rise” (trans. C. Edward Sachau). Al-Maqrizi quoted him verbatim four centuries later. Al-Suyuti, quoting Ibn Fadl Allah, says that among other hypotheses some people “say they (the pyramids) are shelters against the Deluge, which latter is the most improbable of all, for they do not look like living quarters.” Al-Maqrizi, Murtada ibn al-’Afif and the Akhbar al-zaman all claim that the last pre-Flood pharaoh tried to save himself by hiding in the pyramid, but died before he got there, while his chief priest rode away with Noah in the Ark. All of the writers also closely associated the pyramids with the zodiac, particularly in terms of how the stars foretold the Flood. The point is that Getsinger was clearly cribbing from earlier claims, and he presented it as a shocking new revelation. To that end, he is pretty much just like modern fringe writers.

Now if Wolter were on Oak Island and conveniently picked up a piece of rock with that "hooked" X on it, he'd be writing his next book.

Oak Island's announcer never fails to amaze me. From playing fast and loose with what "scholars" actually are, to stating past treasure hunter Dunfield had come up just short of his goal in digging up the "money pit", when he in fact determined there was nothing to be had there and that alleged manmade traps and treasure tunnels were naturally occurring phenomena.

Reply

At Risk

11/30/2016 12:26:34 pm

There are two mysterious X's (though not Hooked-X's) carved into a rock, apparently not far from the Copper Harbor, MI petroglyph of a Norse sailing ship with snake-heads at both ends. These carvings are located at the tip of a peninsula jutting northward up into Lake Superior, along with a bear carving likely made by the same carver as the ship. Here are links to the various images:

This discussion of Templars, Freemasons and pyramids reminds me of a "defensive rock shelter lookout" I was allowed to see and photograph by a rancher near Starbuck, MN only last year. There are some puzzling aspects to the shelter, one being that a flat-faced, pyramid-shaped rock seems to have been given a prominent spot in constructing the north wall of this rock shelter.

The other odd thing about this site is that it is located just a few miles east of the Chippewa River...as is Runestone Park, farther north. Needless to say, some public personalities think there is a connection between Runestone Park, the Kensington Runestone, and Templars/post-Templars. I personally believe, myself, that it is likely that this is true, which is why I'm now offering this new information to Jason and his blog. It does look like this pyramid-shaped rock was propped up to possibly appear prominent in the construction of the shelter, but of course this is merely speculation. (This page may load slowly because I didn't reduce down some of the photos I just added):

http://hallmarkemporium.com/kensingtonrunestone/id37.html

Reply

Uncle Ron

11/30/2016 04:39:12 pm

What I see in that "flat-faced, pyramid-shaped rock <that> seems to have been given a prominent spot" is confirmation bias. Someone, long ago, made a rough rock wall. That stone just happened to fit at that place in that position. Nothing special or significant about it.

Reply

At Risk

11/30/2016 10:38:16 pm

Hi Uncle Ron. I haven't confirmed anything, so there can't be much confirmation bias on my part. I said it seems to have been given a prominent spot. I say this because, as one can see, the large rock was propped up in such a way that a clear pyramid shape was presented...on purpose or not, we can only speculate.

It could go either way, but I tried to tie in other aspects which could be seen as either meaningful or simply provocative. The site represents something...people from a particular era, and it would be nice to know what it represents. It is possible that it represents Templars or post-Templars in one way or another, especially if Runestone Hill does also. But, this is hard to determine, isn't it? At any rate, the site should appeal to professional historians...some day.

Uncle Ron

12/1/2016 11:51:17 am

"Confirmation bias" means, basically, that you tend to see what you are looking for. You want the rock to be "pyramid shaped" (whereas most people would simply say it's roughly triangular) and you want its location to be "prominent" when it fact it just happens to fit that particular spot because of the shape the rocks placed underneath it. You already believe in the Templar/Freemason/KRS mythology so that "truth" is your bias. Now, everything you see will be viewed from the perspective which confirms that belief.

The rest of us see rocks.

At Risk

12/1/2016 01:39:13 pm

Hi Uncle Ron, I'm just curious about whether you find anything interesting about the apparent rock shelter site. Do you have any opinion other than this is just rocks?

I've been finding out that it's extremely difficult to get anyone interested in unusual sites in this KRS-laden region. Maybe this is the KRS-skeptics' version of confirmation bias? In other words, if most of the "professionals" wrongly think the KRS was hoaxed, what chance is there for someone (like me) to approach them with something like this defensive lookout shelter...even though the site can stand on its own as most likely being historically unique?

I believe this same reverse-confirmation bias you are showing, Uncle Ron, is hindering my ability to interest professionals in the apparent medieval Norse Code-stone I recently found and decoded. The bias stems from the false notion that no Europeans were in this region before the French.

I think this bias has affected my ability to arrange professional archaeological help, because of overt skepticism... even though the MN State Archaeologist has told me she will assist me along the way if I can find a suitable archaeologist for her office to license.

It really is difficult to get professional help with so much skepticism swirling all around...yet professional help is the only option I have with this code-stone. This is my current predicament, if anyone cares.

It has been a balancing act to be vague enough about the location of the Norse Code-stone, while also trying to drum-up interest and possible support. Here is the best run-down of the proposed Norse Code-stone I can offer (with Jason's forbearance):

It would thrill me to have the support of someone like Scott Wolter, or Jason here, or even Professor White, in helping to arrange a professional exploratory dig at this ridge-line site near Appleton, MN. Who from this group of dignitaries might I expect to gain help from? Who would possibly have their name attached to something medieval and Norse that might turn "at least" regional history on its head?

I have never taken anyone to this site, however, I will gladly escort Wolter, Colavito or White to the location, where a lucky man will get to see an actual medieval Norse stonehole rock encoding, backed up with a deep-penetrating ferrous metal detector.

Perhaps this "seeing is believing" will move someone to action, so that we all may enjoy experiencing, beholding, whatever I believe was purposely buried hundreds of years ago...probably even well before 1362, at an earlier time, when long-distance land-grabbing was popular.

Uncle Ron, can you still make a half-mile hike through a stony landscape? Could you leave your skeptic's hat in the car? I will provide you with another hat for the excursion...one with a big red Hooked-X on it! Ha! Ha! Wolter might show up and slap it right off your head! (Just throwing a little humor in.)

Weatherwax

12/1/2016 02:06:22 pm

Well, the photos don't show anything but a rock with holes in it. Holes that could have been placed there at any time for any reason.

If you want to interest a professional archaeologist, you're probably going to have to hire one. Like most professionals, they need to eat and pay rent, and if they don't think what you're saying is compelling enough, they're going to stick with paid work. And if what they're telling you is that what you're showing is not interesting, maybe you should think about why that might be. Hint, it's not to maintain the status quo or because they're too locked into their world view to "see the truth".

The area was occupied extensively during the European settlement period, so you need to provide evidence that any stone placement occurred previous to that time, and finding a code in a possibly random series of stone holes isn't enough.

Uncle Ron

12/1/2016 09:28:18 pm

First and foremost, If you ever expect to be taken seriously, you have to divorce yourself from Scott Wolter (and everybody he associates with). He has made himself the laughingstock of the archeological community.
As to your rock "lookout / shelter / camp," although there is some obvious "construction" there you don't provide an overall layout of the area or even an aerial view. Get a drone and take some pics from overhead; or do a real survey with a grid. Admittedly, something is(was) going on there, but your whimsical description contains a dozen totally unproven assertions as opposed to simple unadorned observations. When you can carefully document the anomalous (non-natural) features suggesting human activity on a scaled map, and document the KNOWN human activity in the immediate vicinity (Native Americans and settlers, not some imagined Norse exploration party), you might be able to convince a real archeologist to take a look (offer to pay for a couple hours of his time). Talk to an archeologist and ask what information he/she would need to see to become curious enough to actually take to the field with you. As long as you persist in superimposing your KRS-style narrative on the whole venture you will be written off as a crack pot who has discovered an old barn foundation on a hill.
I will not be returning to this thread but good luck!

Mark L

12/2/2016 08:05:20 am

Perhaps no-one is interested in your anomalies because...they aren't that anomalous? I don't know anything about you, but if you've got some professional qualifications in this area, perhaps talk to your peers and bounce your ideas off them? Send photos to archaeological magazines with details of any investigation you've done?

The idea that mainstream science, with its funding cuts and vastly reduced level of importance in public discourse compared to, say, 50 years ago, is actively hiding things in direct contradiction to its own best interests, has always been a curious idea to me.

At Risk

12/2/2016 02:25:22 pm

Mark L, this is puzzling to me, too. The first thing that comes to mind is how the State Museum in Maine has custody of what may very well be actual runestones (hooked x's and all), yet when I went there several years ago, they claimed there was not room for them, which was a ridiculous claim. They actively, purposely avoided putting them on display, though there was and still is considerable public interest in the artifacts. Someone made a decision to hide them from public view.

On the other side of the spectrum, we see Big Ole in Alexandria, MN, attempting to claim that fair city as the pagan birthplace of America. The city officials and representatives, and the Runestone Museum, don't mind conflating the Christian 1362 Kensington Runestone with mythological Big Ole, the Viking.

It may be that Norsemen were in this area towards the end of the Viking Age, if compared to the founding of the early Vinland era, for example, but to claim Alexandria as a pagan birthplace of America based on a later Christian stone document, is quite appalling. Big Ole stands a stones-throw from the Runestone Museum, and Big Ole trinkets sell big-time there. In Alex, confusion is everywhere.

Anyway, Mark L, "actively hiding things in direct contradiction to its own best interests," has always been a curious idea to me, too. I also find it odd that some folks "in charge" can't readily see when something is in their best interest.

It boils down to what the "establishment" we're talking about considers worthwhile or not. But, the problem then is that those representing academia or the establishment sometimes feel compelled to "hide things," or not get involved. Anything considered fringe is pushed aside or not considered by those in charge, out of loyalty to the status-quo. It's a dilemma for someone like me...and I'm not even selling anything...only trying to share what I think may be pertinent information about a few local, potentially historic locations.

At Risk

12/2/2016 02:40:28 pm

Uncle Ron, I think Wolter might still have some "pull-power" when it comes to getting these kinds of things done, but he would need to have sufficient interest. Unfortunately, right now some of the issues or subjects I'm involved with don't match up with his latest finds, and even contradict his own views. I think this is somewhat strange since we both believe the KRS is authentic, but that's the nature of the beast right now.

But, I do welcome help from him, and I think he would benefit greatly at this time by being involved with something on the so-called fringe that pans-out, and pans-out well. From everything I've researched and read about, I see no better opportunity of unearthing something medieval and European in America, right now, than what is being hidden underground by rocks above-ground.

Realistically, I couldn't expect Jason or Andy to help me, but I thought I'd throw it out there just for fun.

Weatherwax

12/1/2016 01:16:26 am

Other pseudo authorities swear the "Viking" ship is Mycenaean, and it's vague enough it could just as easily be a Native American Canoe.

On what authority are the petroglyphs dated to 1640 BC? I should say what methods were used to date them?

And wouldn't a date of 1640 BC rule out Vikings or Templars?

Reply

At Risk

12/1/2016 11:04:44 am

Hi Weatherwax. Yes, the vessel has also been attributed to Phoenicians and much missing copper, but Mr. Fell fell down on this one.

I personally did enough research on the details of this petroglyph to show that it is, indeed, the depiction of a medieval Norse vessel. Snakes are very tied-into Norse mythology, and we see snake-heads on each end of this ship. Every other detail is Norse, also, from the planking to the single square sail. Who in "modern times" would have known that snake-heads were often used, like dragon-heads, on these medieval Norse vessels? (I found this information from a Scandinavian website detailing stamps and stamp collecting.)

The location of this petroglyph is on the would-be route of the Kensington Runestone party of adventurers, coming west through the Great Lakes from America's east coast (the region of Vinland the Good). As an historical fact, by 1362 Vinland had already been in existence much longer than the US has now been in existence.

Weatherwax

12/1/2016 01:23:04 pm

With respect, I suggest you put away the stamp collecting books and read some archaeology.

Again, the petroglyph is just vague enough to be a number of things, and you're just seeing a Viking ship because you want to.

I suspect most Norse ships wouldn't have dragon heads. They were made for commerce and were no frills. On top of which by 1362 the Greenland settlements were struggling and being cut off by the expanding ice, so major exhibitions to NA would not be likely by that time.

Since the KRS is still probably a fraud, saying the petroglyphs are on the route to get there is pretty meaningless. And the petroglyphs could just as easily by as modern as the KRS, or even later.

There are still no indications of Norse settlements or camps or even exhibitions to the area.

At Risk

12/1/2016 01:47:13 pm

I used to be a stamp collector. Collecting stamps was fun. So was collecting coins...then 3,000 LP's. Collecting became a burden. I no longer collect anything. But, in case you change your mind about the value of stamp collecting, here is a good place to start:

www.shipsonstamps.org/Topics/html/viking.htm

At Risk

12/1/2016 01:52:14 pm

From the stamp site: "On a man of war both bow and stern were decorated by ornamental carvings. Dragon heads were the most common designs, closely followed by bulls, snakes and worms ('Ormen Lange' (see above) means 'the long worm'."

Weatherwax

12/1/2016 02:11:54 pm

I meant no slight to stamp collecting. I have a few coins myself.

I simply meant that a story from a stamp collecting book is not the place to get an accurate history lesson. It might be accurate, or it might be fluffed up to sell stamps. It probably gives beliefs from many years ago that are no longer considered accurate.

What voyles/gunn/at risk also doesn't say is that according to the locals, both the bear and ship were carved by some local kids back in the 60's or the 70's. And Voyles, there is no way you're going to get an Archaeologist to go do a dig without funding. Either pay for it yourself or give it a rest.

Joe Scales

12/1/2016 10:43:02 pm

If they put a bird head on the bow of those mythical Viking ships, could they also have had wings to get over Niagara Falls...

At Risk

12/2/2016 02:57:53 pm

Says scott: "What voyles/gunn/at risk also doesn't say is that according to the locals, both the bear and ship were carved by some local kids back in the 60's or the 70's. And Voyles, there is no way you're going to get an Archaeologist to go do a dig without funding. Either pay for it yourself or give it a rest."

scott, are you suggesting that some local kids back about fifty years ago knew to put snake-heads on this ship? Please. Kids weren't even on the internet back in those days.

By the way, I haven't tried to get an archaeologist to do anything free, and I've publicly mentioned putting up the first $1,000 in a collaborative effort. I'm not afraid to put my money where my mouth is.

So then, in order this should be: Voyles, Gunn and At Risk, and you should currently reference me as At Risk, if you want to play by established blog protocol. In the meanwhile, anyone may certainly contact me, Bob Voyles, at the email given at my website. And I'm not selling anything.

At Risk

12/2/2016 03:18:50 pm

For Joe Scales: Where there's a will, there's a way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Griffon

Niagara River to Saginaw Bay[edit]
In July 1679, La Salle directed 12 men to tow Le Griffon through the rapids of the Niagara River with long lines stretched from the bank. They moored in quiet water off Squaw Island three miles from Lake Erie waiting for favorable northeast winds. La Salle sent Tonti ahead on 22 July 1679 with a few selected men, canoes, and trading goods to secure furs and supplies. Le Griffon set off on 7 August with unfurled sails, a 34-man crew, and a salute from her cannon and musketry.[7] They were navigating Le Griffon through uncharted waters that only canoes had previously explored. They made their way around Long Point, Ontario, constantly sounding as they went through the first moonless, fog-laden night to the sound of breaking waves and guided only by La Salle's knowledge of Galinée's crude, 10-year-old chart. They sailed across the open water of Lake Erie whose shores were forested and "unbroken by the faintest signs of civilization".[1] They reached the mouth of the Detroit River on 10 August 1679 where they were greeted by three columns of smoke signaling the location of Tonti's camp whom they received on board.[7] They entered Lake St. Clair on 12 August, the feast day of Saint Clare of Assisi, and named the lake after her. They again sounded their way through the narrow channel of the St. Clair River to its mouth where they were delayed by contrary winds until 24 August. For the second time, they used a dozen men and ropes to tow Le Griffon over the rapids of the St. Clair River into lower Lake Huron. They made their way north and west to Saginaw Bay on Lake Huron where they were becalmed until noon of 25 August. La Salle took personal command at this point due to evidence that the pilot was negligent.[1][7]

"says scott" ? no voyles, it's what the locals say happened. And yes voyles, it is what the locals say occurred. And as for your sarcastic "please" . Get over yourself gunn, yes I do think it not only possible , but probable that kids or teens could carve them. You say that 50 years ago kids weren't even on the internet, who cares? The dissemination of knowledge did not begin and end with Internet area. There were these strange and obscure things called books, magazines and movies that showed Vikings and all other types of marvels.Ever hear of National Geographic? cartoons? Book illustrations ? I used to carve stuff in trees and rocks when board, and I'm not alone. I also notice you don't mention the bear. Think kids needed the internet to figure out what a bear looks like.

I really also couldn't care less what you want me to call you either, or in what order.For someone who accuses others of using aliases you seem to enjoy changes names.

$1000 will not get you anything as far as a dig or much of anything else. Archaeologists do not work for, nor can they start a dig without proper funding. I also don't know how , with your track record of dismissing any evidence or opinion that you don't agree with, you expect a professional scientist to want to deal with you. Let alone on an unfunded scavengfer hunt going not on evidence, but on your word.

Reply

At Risk

12/2/2016 09:56:55 pm

scott, from experience, I would be better off not responding further to your rude and unintelligent remarks. Frankly, you come across as a common blog troublemaker...no class at all.

Weatherwax

12/2/2016 11:50:05 pm

Just to reinforce what Scott said, Wolter and his allies are not going to have any pull among professional archaeologists.

And I don't believe Jason can help you as he is not a professional field archaeologist, which is what you need. Because you were completely impervious to any of the guidance Andy gave you on his blog, I doubt he'll be able to help you further.

Any kid in the Midwest is going to have grown up seeped in Viking culture, and the books of that period were full of out of date ideas like helmets with horns or dragon heads on every ship.

At Risk

12/3/2016 12:26:56 am

How about snake-heads, Weatherwax? How about snake-heads scott? How about snake-heads, Joe Scales? How about snake-heads, Mr. Lister?

EP, Mike Morgan, various Johns, wouldn't you realize that you can't hide from a code-breaker? You dropped too many clues, like your constant, repeated "alias proximity," where you introduce vexation through a side-by-side alias...then respond as Joe.

You've obviously kept up with my previous insinuations about this. Do you really need all this extra "strength," Joe? Times must be tough without Wolter to kick around much anymore, huh?

Joe, did the local boys find snake-heads on a Norse ship from one of your idealized sources, and then very artfully carve that depiction on this aged-appearing petroglyph fifty years or so ago? Let's just doubt this together, to remain friendly, okay?

By the way, I think Andy might be a bit disingenuous with his class on Forbidden Archaeology, since he comes across publicly as so opposed to anything "fringe." In my humblest of opinions, he was wrong to attempt to resurrect Tom Trow's trashed "academic" view which blames stoneholes up here in this region on class-action Scandinavian forgetfulness. Tsk, tsk.

Weatherwax

12/3/2016 12:36:11 am

It's a crudely chiseled blob with a dot in it. Is it a snake? Is it dragon? Is it an ameba? It's whatever At Risk wants to see.

As for the rest, I think you've gone off the deep end. I'm out.

John (the other one)

12/3/2016 10:07:05 am

Gunn - you now appear to losing your mind. You aren't a code breaker, you haven't found anything, as I've said in the past that looks like a drill test pattern. Why is it not? Oh right you have no answer. Now you are pushing some of other trash all because it is near some other hoax. Just get your own message board where you can talk about all this and your precious divine right to archaeology by yourself or maybe you can even impersonate other people there.

Stop using my name in relation to your stupid fringe assertions that people are other people it's childish. As I said before, get a hypothesis, an idea, at least some sort of scientific thought process. Saying I am going to dig a hole and find some because of Norse and Norse and Norse is nothing.

You reference your crappy non-peer reviewed work, your shit website full of pictures that offer little substance and seem to think that Scott Wolter is some sort of non-clown authority when he doesn't even understand that a hooked X is really just a slightly fancy character.

The great thing about Andys class is that they get to learn from someone like him,me hike readings his website. That way they know if they are ever talking to someone like you they can just nod their head and laugh. An ancient artifact needs no defenders the science stands on its own that is its purpose, people who don't understand that just don't understand.

At Risk

12/3/2016 12:11:20 pm

Thanks for showing your true colors, Joe. By the way, it's pretty obvious you're using S. Simon to now plague Wolter again. It's always different names, but with the same issues with Wolter. You can't let him go, can you? Do you love him or hate him?

At Risk

12/3/2016 12:31:29 pm

Sorry Jason, things can degenerate quickly when I come under direct attack out-of-the-blue, such as with the introduction of scott's (not Wolter) venom, above. I thought things were going pretty well until the attacks began. I'll bow out now, since I tend to become somewhat provocative when this happens.

By the way, I would now expect to come under attack by Only Me, whom some think may actually be you. I don't think so myself, but would you care to assure your readers that you don't have this association with Only Me? Thanks for your patience.

This has been like those exiled to Iceland and Greenland for a few years, and then given another chance to be sociably acceptable. I think. Anyway, thanks and I'll give it a rest for a while.

Joe Scales

12/3/2016 01:19:31 pm

John et al,
As it's obvious now who At Risk is, it's best to ignore him. I often wondered why he accused me (falsely) of being so many online entities; some even dating back well before I came across this blog and ventured into the realm of online debunking. Now it is clear given his unbalanced sensitivities. He is simply projecting his now confirmed penchant for impersonating others anonymously onto those who engage in reason to vex him.

Seriously. He's best ignored.

Mike Morgan

12/3/2016 06:50:05 pm

I hear you Joe, no feeding the troll! Even though I have only made one direct comment, a question actually, on 5/31/16, to the Norse pre-columbian stone-hole making expeditionary party incursion into the American heartland advocate in Jason's blog of 5/29/16 Jason's "Scott Wolter: J. Hutton Pulitzer Doesn't Have "Any Credibility" on Oak Island Sword Issue" and only referenced him four times, twice in comments on Scott Wolter's blog, where I took him and Wolter to task for falsely accusing and perpetuating the false accusation that Jason stated something he did not, then recently, twice in comments on Andy's blog in the 3 or 4 years he has been has been posting his ad nauseam drivel on these blogs, while anyone with even only rudimentary reading skills would clearly be able to discern our completely different writing styles, he first listed me as one of your supposed aliases when, in a somewhat roundabout fashion, he posted a non answer to my question of 5/31/16, and again today above, as well as several other times in Jason's & Andy's blogs.

Shoot, after arising this morning and reading his above comment wherein I was again named as an alias, I had to have my neighbors visually verify I was indeed me .... today! :>).

Joe Scales

12/4/2016 01:11:08 am

Mike, one good thing out of these idiotic accusations are that each time he adds a new name to my alleged play list, that's just another individual who realizes just how wrong this guy can be. I admit, I was first bothered by his accusations, but now that the guy is sneaking back here with a new moniker, I suppose I can have the last laugh. Or would that be the last rattle of the cage?

Tom

11/30/2016 01:07:12 pm

It is interesting that this "new information" turns up now and is so topical.
Perhaps careful investigation of sources etc. may be in order?

Reply

DaveR

11/30/2016 01:46:12 pm

The screen shot of the rock looks like a natural inclusion and nothing created by someone's hand, although it's difficult to tell from a single picture. Either way, since when did Wolter become the leading authority on the fabled hooked x?

Reply

Andy White

11/30/2016 02:00:15 pm

Also, if sloppiness can be used to determine that a carving is not authentic, go ahead and throw the KRS on the scrap heap.

Reply

Mike Morgan

11/30/2016 02:49:06 pm

I find it also strange that he declares it sloppily made and not a templar “Hooked X®” while it resembles more than any other “Hooked X®'s”, the sloppily made one that is in the Talbot Tomb that he accepts as templar.

Jim

11/30/2016 10:57:45 pm

Out goes the 90 foot stone as well !

Joe Scales

12/1/2016 10:42:18 am

No one alive has ever seen the "90 foot" stone, allegedly found at a depth of 90 feet on one of the alleged wooden platforms that were allegedly found every ten feet down. Of course even the alleged wooden platforms are suspect as the story originally told only claimed flag stones and pick marks at a depth of ten feet. Successive generations added to the hoax, first supplementing the tale of pick marks at ten feet to wooden platforms every ten feet down leading of course to the alleged carved stone at 90 feet. The stone was said to be discovered in the early 1800's and lost in the early 1900's. In that time it was never traced. I was never photographed. There was no written documentation of what was even carved upon it until 1949, when an author alleged unverified hearsay to set forth what the symbols looked like.

Notice all the alleges...

Duke of URL

11/30/2016 02:00:00 pm

Jason, I'd be pleased if you kept us uptodate on this:
http://observer.com/2016/11/egyptian-archaeologists-just-discovered-a-7000-year-old-lost-city-along-the-nile/

Reply

Only Me

11/30/2016 02:03:50 pm

Looking closely at the photo, I see two X's on the ridge in the middle of the stone that are obviously natural scratches. Now, Wolter wants to debunk the alleged Hooked X® on this stone, but, he and David Brody claimed natural grooves on the Westford Knight were a legitimate Hooked X®.

I see he's still trying to convince everyone he is the only one qualified to determine what is or isn't a genuine Hooked X®.

Reply

Joe Scales

11/30/2016 02:10:31 pm

Hooked X's are only important to Wolter if he can realize financial gain from his penchant for confirmation bias in their regard. He is now claiming that the current Oak Island reality show's credited use of his term of art gives him credibility. No, not credibility in my view. Marketability would be more apropos.

Reply

Uncle Ron

11/30/2016 04:14:02 pm

I've seen that sort of line or rocks that have been underground and struck by a plow (or conceivably a backhoe too). If this stone came from a tilled field it could easily have been struck several times before it finally came to the surface.

Reply

Kathleen

12/1/2016 10:54:19 am

That's very interesting. It's an explanation that's sensible.

Joe Scales

12/1/2016 02:01:58 pm

It was conveniently picked up from a site that had been dug, tilled, plowed and backhoed for over a hundred and fifty years by countless entities and individuals.

100% right Uncle Ron. I don't know about plowing, but I've seen that type of scarring on jobs sites for almost 30 years. Not only backhoes but also dozers will scar the hell out of rocks and stones. I've seen some pretty weird marks over the years. If only I'd known I could've saved them and sold them to Wolter as artifacts.Lol, coulda retired early.

Graham

11/30/2016 07:39:24 pm

I will add to this weeks round up the four (surprisingly) disparaging reviews by UFO Proponent Kevin Randle of a cable TV show called 'Treasure Quest'.